In a recently appealed asbestos lung cancer lawsuit, an Illinois Appellate Court affirmed the jury’s verdict in favor of the defendant, originally ruled on Dec. 16, 2014, which stated that there was not enough evidence to convict the defending company of causing the plaintiff’s asbestos lung cancer condition.

Plaintiff Carol H. originally filed this asbestos lung cancer lawsuit against Sprinkmanns Sons Corp. in October 2009, though the case did not go to trial in the Illinois court until 2013, alleging that during her time as a Sprinkmanns employee from 1962 until 1976, she was exposed to asbestos particles at various plant locations.

This exposure allegedly occurred via the plants’ asbestos-covered steam pipes that ran over 30,000 feet. Carol further alleges that asbestos-containing pipes were installed by Sprinkmanns without any warning to workers about the asbestos dangers and hazards.

Carol was allegedly diagnosed with asbestos lung cancer in 2010, 34 years after her last day working with Sprinkmanns.

During the asbestos lung cancer court proceeding, Carol produced a well-known medical expert Dr. Arthur Frank, who allegedly determined that even minimal exposure to asbestos could be detrimental to an individual’s health.

However, Dr. Frank was not certain what the threshold exposure level for asbestos would be. In his testimony, he further explained that although many experts believe “significant” exposure is needed to develop asbestosis, the exact definition of what asbestos exposure counts as significant is not agreed upon within the medical community.

In this asbestos lung cancer lawsuit, Dr. Frank testified that his expert opinion is that asbestos exposure does not need to be very “significant” in order for a worker like Carol to develop asbestos lung cancer from working at a Sprinkmanns plant.

Despite Dr. Frank’s opinion, the jury ruled in favor of the defendant. Carol later challenged the verdict and appealed the decision, arguing that her specific asbestos lung cancer medical condition was proven.

She claimed that Sprinkmanns did not deny the presence of asbestos-containing material in the plants where Carol worked, and finally, her expert witness concluded that the plaintiff’s exposure was a feasible cause of asbestosis, since airborne asbestos can linger for extended periods of time and then be inhaled.

According to the asbestos lung cancer lawsuit, the appellate court upheld the jury verdict, ruling:

“All plaintiff offered in the trial was speculation that her asbestosis resulted from repair work on the pipe-covering insulation in the Eureka plant, although she never saw any repair work being done on the insulation and there was no other evidence placing her near any such repair work. … Arguably, no solid evidence lifted those theories out of the realm of speculation, out of the realm of ‘could.’”

Carol is not the only individual to file an asbestos lung cancer lawsuit. Many employees and families of employees have filed asbestos lung cancer lawsuits or joined asbestos lung cancer class action lawsuits against companies who allegedly exposed their workers to asbestos fibers and materials without prior warning.

The Asbestos Lung Cancer Lawsuit is Case No. 4-13-1118, in the U.S. Appellate Court of Illinois, Fourth District.

Occupational Exposure to Asbestos

Certain trade professions have a higher chance of unknown asbestos exposure and therefore are at a higher risk of developing asbestos lung cancer. Occupations with a high risk of asbestos exposure include:

• Auto mechanics
• Shipyard workers
• Paper mill workers
• Construction workers
• Textile workers
• Insulation installers
• Sheet metal workers
• Roofers
• Toll collectors
• Tilers
• Linotype technicians
• Plumbers

These individuals are especially at a high risk of developing asbestos lung cancer because they are required to work in small, enclosed spaces with little to no protective hear.

Additionally, according to recent asbestos lung cancer studies, these workers may have unknowingly exposed their family to asbestos fibers stuck to their work clothing, and thus, these family members may have developed asbestos lung cancer through secondary exposure.